6 ms·

Could you run XSLT as part of your build process, and serve the generated HTML?

James_K 10mo ago
No because then it would not be an Atom feed. Atom is a syndication format, the successor to RSS. I must provide users with a link to a valid Atom XML document, and I want them to see a web page when this link is clicked. This is why so many people find this objectionable. If you want to have a basic blog, you need some HTML docments and and RSS/Atom feed. The technologies required to do this are HTML for the documents and XSLT to format the feed. Google is now removing one of those technologies, which makes it essentially impossible to serve a truly static website.
- ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
  > Google is now removing one of those technologies, which makes it essentially impossible to serve a truly static website. How so? You're just generating static pages. Generate ones that work.
  - James_K 10mo ago
    You cannot generate a valid RRS/Atom document which also renders as HTML.
    - shadowgovt 10mo ago
      So put them on separate pages because they are separate protocols (HTML for the browser and XML for a feed reader), with a link on the HTML page to be copied and pasted into a feed reader. It really feels like the developer has over-constrained the problem to work with browsers as they are right now in this context.
      - kuschku 10mo ago
        > So put them on separate pages because they are separate protocols Would you also suggest I use separate URLs for HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1? Maybe for a gzipped response vs a raw response? It's the same content, just supplied in a different format. It should be the same URL.
        zzo38computer 10mo ago
        There are separate URLs for "https:" vs "http:" although they are usually the same content when both are available (although I have seen some where it isn't the same), although the compression (and some other stuff) is decided by headers. However, it might make sense to include some of these things optionally within the URL (within the authority section and/or scheme section somehow), for compression, version of the internet, version of the protocol, certificate pinning, etc, in a way that these things are easily delimited so that a program that understands this convention can ignore them. However, that might make a mess. I had also defined a "hashed:" scheme for specifying the hash of the file that is referenced by the URL, and this is a scheme that includes another URL. (The "jar:" scheme is another one that also includes other URL, and is used for referencing files within a ZIP archive.)
        ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
        > Would you also suggest I use separate URLs for HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1? Maybe for a gzipped response vs a raw response? The difference between HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1 is exactly like the difference between plugging your PC in with a green cable or a red cable. The client neither knows nor cares. > It's the same content, just supplied in a different format. It should be the same URL. So what do I put as the URL of an MP3 and an Ogg of the same song? It's the same content, just supplied in a different format.
        kuschku 10mo ago
        > The difference between HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1 is exactly like the difference between plugging your PC in with a green cable or a red cable. The client neither knows nor cares. Just like protocol negotiation, HTTP has format negotiation and XML postprocessing for exactly the same reason. > So what do I put as the URL of an MP3 and an Ogg of the same song? It's the same content, just supplied in a different format Whatever you want? If I access example.org/example.png, most websites will return a webp or avif instead if my browser supports it. Similarly, it makes sense to return an XML with XSLT for most browsers and a degraded experience with just a simple text file for legacy browsers such as NCSA Mosaic or 2027's Google Chrome.
- gldrk 10mo ago
  >I must provide users with a link to a valid Atom XML document, and I want them to see a web page when this link is clicked. Do RSS readers and browsers send the same Accept header?
bilog 10mo ago
XML source + XSLT can be considerably more compact than the resulting transformation, saving on hosting and bandwidth.
- zetanor 10mo ago
  The Internet saves a lot more on storage and bandwidth costs by not shipping an XSLT implementation with every browser than it does by allowing Joe's Blog to present XML as an index.
  - LtWorf 10mo ago
    You redownload your browser every request‽
kuschku 10mo ago
I have arduinos with sensors providing their measurements as XML, with an external XSLT stylesheet to make them user-friendly. The arduinos have 2KB RAM and 16 MIPS. Which build process are you talking about? Which XSLT library would you recommend for running on microcontrollers?
- matthews3 10mo ago
  > Which build process are you talking about? The one in the comment I replied to.
  - kuschku 10mo ago
    Fair, but that shows the issue at hand, doesn't it? XSLT is a general solution, while most alternatives are relatively specific solutions. (Though I've written repeatedly about my preferred alternative to XSLT)
    - righthand 10mo ago
      > (Though I've written repeatedly about my preferred alternative to XSLT) Link to example?
      - kuschku 10mo ago
        I've previously suggested the XML stylesheet tag should allow <?xml-stylesheet type="application/javascript" href="https://example.org/script.js"?> which would then allow the script to use the service-worker APIs to intercept and transform the request.
        righthand 10mo ago
        Oh yes sorry I thought you meant you had a blog post or something on it.
Fileformat 10mo ago
That is not the point: I already have the blog's HTML pages. I want the RSS feed to be an RSS feed, not another version of the HTML. The XSLT view of the RSS feed so people (especially newcomers) aren't met with a wall of XML text. It should still be a valid XML feed. Plus it needs to work with static site generators.

No because then it would not be an Atom feed. Atom is a syndication format, the successor to RSS. I must provide users with a link to a valid Atom XML document, and I want them to see a web page when this link is clicked. This is why so many people find this objectionable. If you want to have a basic blog, you need some HTML docments and and RSS/Atom feed. The technologies required to do this are HTML for the documents and XSLT to format the feed. Google is now removing one of those technologies, which makes it essentially impossible to serve a truly static website.

ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
> Google is now removing one of those technologies, which makes it essentially impossible to serve a truly static website. How so? You're just generating static pages. Generate ones that work.
- James_K 10mo ago
  You cannot generate a valid RRS/Atom document which also renders as HTML.
  - shadowgovt 10mo ago
    So put them on separate pages because they are separate protocols (HTML for the browser and XML for a feed reader), with a link on the HTML page to be copied and pasted into a feed reader. It really feels like the developer has over-constrained the problem to work with browsers as they are right now in this context.
    - kuschku 10mo ago
      > So put them on separate pages because they are separate protocols Would you also suggest I use separate URLs for HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1? Maybe for a gzipped response vs a raw response? It's the same content, just supplied in a different format. It should be the same URL.
      - zzo38computer 10mo ago
        There are separate URLs for "https:" vs "http:" although they are usually the same content when both are available (although I have seen some where it isn't the same), although the compression (and some other stuff) is decided by headers. However, it might make sense to include some of these things optionally within the URL (within the authority section and/or scheme section somehow), for compression, version of the internet, version of the protocol, certificate pinning, etc, in a way that these things are easily delimited so that a program that understands this convention can ignore them. However, that might make a mess. I had also defined a "hashed:" scheme for specifying the hash of the file that is referenced by the URL, and this is a scheme that includes another URL. (The "jar:" scheme is another one that also includes other URL, and is used for referencing files within a ZIP archive.)
      - ErroneousBosh 10mo ago
        > Would you also suggest I use separate URLs for HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1? Maybe for a gzipped response vs a raw response? The difference between HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1 is exactly like the difference between plugging your PC in with a green cable or a red cable. The client neither knows nor cares. > It's the same content, just supplied in a different format. It should be the same URL. So what do I put as the URL of an MP3 and an Ogg of the same song? It's the same content, just supplied in a different format.
        kuschku 10mo ago
        > The difference between HTTP/2 and HTTP/1.1 is exactly like the difference between plugging your PC in with a green cable or a red cable. The client neither knows nor cares. Just like protocol negotiation, HTTP has format negotiation and XML postprocessing for exactly the same reason. > So what do I put as the URL of an MP3 and an Ogg of the same song? It's the same content, just supplied in a different format Whatever you want? If I access example.org/example.png, most websites will return a webp or avif instead if my browser supports it. Similarly, it makes sense to return an XML with XSLT for most browsers and a degraded experience with just a simple text file for legacy browsers such as NCSA Mosaic or 2027's Google Chrome.
gldrk 10mo ago
>I must provide users with a link to a valid Atom XML document, and I want them to see a web page when this link is clicked. Do RSS readers and browsers send the same Accept header?

bilog 10mo ago

XML source + XSLT can be considerably more compact than the resulting transformation, saving on hosting and bandwidth.

zetanor 10mo ago
The Internet saves a lot more on storage and bandwidth costs by not shipping an XSLT implementation with every browser than it does by allowing Joe's Blog to present XML as an index.
- LtWorf 10mo ago
  You redownload your browser every request‽

kuschku 10mo ago

I have arduinos with sensors providing their measurements as XML, with an external XSLT stylesheet to make them user-friendly. The arduinos have 2KB RAM and 16 MIPS. Which build process are you talking about? Which XSLT library would you recommend for running on microcontrollers?

matthews3 10mo ago
> Which build process are you talking about? The one in the comment I replied to.
- kuschku 10mo ago
  Fair, but that shows the issue at hand, doesn't it? XSLT is a general solution, while most alternatives are relatively specific solutions. (Though I've written repeatedly about my preferred alternative to XSLT)
  - righthand 10mo ago
    > (Though I've written repeatedly about my preferred alternative to XSLT) Link to example?
    - kuschku 10mo ago
      I've previously suggested the XML stylesheet tag should allow <?xml-stylesheet type="application/javascript" href="https://example.org/script.js"?> which would then allow the script to use the service-worker APIs to intercept and transform the request.
      - righthand 10mo ago
        Oh yes sorry I thought you meant you had a blog post or something on it.

Fileformat 10mo ago

That is not the point: I already have the blog's HTML pages. I want the RSS feed to be an RSS feed, not another version of the HTML. The XSLT view of the RSS feed so people (especially newcomers) aren't met with a wall of XML text. It should still be a valid XML feed. Plus it needs to work with static site generators.